National Football League

Page 103 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
SirLes said:
Went to the game at Wembley today. Wow the Bucs suck. Still fun to watch.
Yeah, the Bucs suck, but they weren't the team on the field in London.

Only halfway through the season, but I think it’s pretty easy to name a lot of the playoff teams. Seattle, SF, GB and NO look quite certain at this point, with the second WC wide open. I’d guess Detroit or Chicago, but watch out for Arizona and Carolina. The NFC East could be won with a sub-.500 record. To paraphrase Churchill, I think Dallas is the worst team in that division, except for the other three. It tells you just how bad that division is that the Giants started 0-6, and now are considered contenders.

In the AFC, the West also will have two playoff teams, Denver and KC. NE as always wins the East, Cincy looks in control of the North and Indy of the South. Leaving the other WC up for grabs, maybe San Diego, but they have to play Denver (twice I think) and KC again. So a lot of teams still in the mix for that.

Seattle plays SF again, at SF, and both Seattle and SF play NO. IOW, each of those teams plays each of the others, and I think it works out that each plays one of those games at home, and on on the road. If one of those three teams wins both of those games, it will have the inside track on HFA, and will be a big favorite for the SB.

Seattle and NO are especially difficult to beat when they play at home, so more specifically, you could argue that the winner of NO at Seattle will go all the way. But Seattle waits for Harvin, and the 49ers for Crabtree. Kaepernick just isn’t the same QB when he doesn’t have both Vernon Davis and Crabtree as targets, and it’s really shown this season.

I think the eventual AFC champion is very difficult to predict, and will be right up to the beginning of the playoffs. Denver and Manning could set a lot of scoring and yardage records this season, but they’re also giving up huge numbers of points and yards on defense. Going into the game against Washington (which eventually will have a non-racist mascot, according to word on the street), only the Eagles had given up more yards per game than Denver. Having Von Miller back should help. But Denver will probably have to beat KC twice to win the division.

Indy has been very impressive in beating three of the preseason top 5 teams, Seattle, SF and Denver, none of which have lost to anyone except Indy and among themselves (Seattle beat SF). I wouldn’t say that they are as good as any of those teams—that they could consistently beat them—but it does indicate that on any given day, they can rise to the occasion and beat anyone, which makes them a scary playoff team. But the loss of Reggie Wayne is huge. Next to Luck, probably the most important player on the team, and maybe the most important if you include the locker room as well as on the field.

Brady is showing signs of age. The Pats gained only 59 yards in the first half against Miami??? And Brady again failed to throw a TD pass, only passed for a 100+ yards. And still they found a way to win. Don’t see them in the SB, but they could spoil someone else’s chances.

Edit: Can someone explain to me what happened to the rule about how yards lost in sacks are to be considered? They used to be considered negative passing yards, in that the total passing yards by the team were calculated by subtracting the yards lost in sacks from the total passing yards by the QB.

But now they seem to have disappeared from the ledger. Consider the Seahawks-Rams game. Russell Wilson passed for 139 yards, and the sum total of the rushes (including Wilson's) was 44 yards, for a total team offense of 183 yards. But Wilson was sacked 7 times for 48 yards. Those yards ought to be subtracted from the total of 183, but aren’t. I did read in a report of the game that the Rams held Seattle to 91 yards passing, which seems correct and accounts for the 48 yards lost in sacks, but nowhere in the stats of the game are these yards accounted for.

I know they haven’t been subtracted from Wilson’s passing total, because if you add the total number of reception yards by all of Seattle’s receivers, you come up with 139. The team stat box makes things even more confusing. While it lists net passing yards as 139, it also lists the 48 yards of sacks, and it lists average yards per attempt as 5.6. Where does this come from? Russell’s stats list 7.7 YPA, which is 139 divided by 18 attempts. The 5.6 YPA could take into account the yards lost by sacks, but doesn’t. If you subtract those yards from 139, you get 91. That divided by 18 is not 5.6. And worse, if you want to count sacks as attempts, you would have 25 attempts, not 18.

I have noticed the same thing with other NFL games, and also with college games. What gives? How can sack yardage be ignored? It means offensive yardage is being inflated, and defensive yards given up made to appear worse than they actually are.
 
Jul 29, 2009
441
0
0
Merckx index said:
Yeah, the Bucs suck, but they weren't the team on the field in London..
:eek: I have no idea why I wrote Bucs instead of Jags - other than they both suck. Never post late at night I guess.

Niners looked strong. So many different ways to get it done. No sacks for either side which was a surprise. Field stood up well given the amount of rain recently and the fact it started raining in the second half.

Jags have very little going or them. At one stage I think the Niners had more touchdowns than the Jags had first downs. 28-0 half way through the second quarter and it looked like 60 points plus as the Jags never looked lie stopping them or sustaining a drive long enough to at least take some time off the clock.

Very happy with the other results in the East. Congrats to the Lions!:D
 
I often say a win is a win. Not this time. I can't contain myself in my angst. How you win also counts big time.

So, as a Hawk fan, I am both mad and embarrassed at the win over the Rams. The C-Hawks can take their semi-glitzy 7-1 record and stick it up their poop chute. They have work to do, both in the game and in character.

Character - Golden Tate: That is no oxymoron, since bad character is consistent with Tate's performance on MNF. His taunting touchdown catch and run was thoroughly low-class. Hands down, that was the lowest class act of a Hawk player in the entire team's history. I have to apologize to Rams players and fans about Tate's actions. They don't deserve it. I am not a fan of ownership intervention, but in this case it would be warranted. If I was owner Paul Allen, I'd tell Pete Carroll to get a handle on that brat. And if Tate was unwilling to change, I'd tell him to take his act to some other town. :mad:

The game - Offensive Line: As I mentioned before, the OL was a huge concern, and it showed. Tom Cable is a good OL coach, but I fail to understand how they could not make adjustments to compensate for both starting tackles being out, and for the way a good Ram defense was playing. They should have given both backup tackles help by using double tight end sets or a heavy package. They also could have simplified the blocking scheme, at least on passing plays, to gap responsibility and plug up the holes. Forget about stunts that open gaps if you get suckered and follow them.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Still around. Havn´t missed a week yet. Made it trou the season somewhat sober so far. :D
Pretty exciting games. And on Sunday i watched my first MLB game since 10+ years! I like the Sox. Someone know what it has that to do with the beards their players have?
If the players in both leagues weren´t overpaid, i could fall in love again with those two great sports.

I am still in the game with my random SB pick (CLE-PHI). Even tough it gets a little harder now since both fell to 3-5. OTOH, 9 RS wins are enough. :)

Merckx index said:
Edit: Can someone explain to me what happened to the rule about how yards lost in sacks are to be considered? They used to be considered negative passing yards, in that the total passing yards by the team were calculated by subtracting the yards lost in sacks from the total passing yards by the QB.

But now they seem to have disappeared from the ledger. Consider the Seahawks-Rams game. Russell Wilson passed for 139 yards, and the sum total of the rushes (including Wilson's) was 44 yards, for a total team offense of 183 yards. But Wilson was sacked 7 times for 48 yards. Those yards ought to be subtracted from the total of 183, but aren’t. I did read in a report of the game that the Rams held Seattle to 91 yards passing, which seems correct and accounts for the 48 yards lost in sacks, but nowhere in the stats of the game are these yards accounted for.

I know they haven’t been subtracted from Wilson’s passing total, because if you add the total number of reception yards by all of Seattle’s receivers, you come up with 139. The team stat box makes things even more confusing. While it lists net passing yards as 139, it also lists the 48 yards of sacks, and it lists average yards per attempt as 5.6. Where does this come from? Russell’s stats list 7.7 YPA, which is 139 divided by 18 attempts. The 5.6 YPA could take into account the yards lost by sacks, but doesn’t. If you subtract those yards from 139, you get 91. That divided by 18 is not 5.6. And worse, if you want to count sacks as attempts, you would have 25 attempts, not 18.

I have noticed the same thing with other NFL games, and also with college games. What gives? How can sack yardage be ignored? It means offensive yardage is being inflated, and defensive yards given up made to appear worse than they actually are.
I guess you look up at ESPN-Stats? The really messed it up since years and still ignore their error. Nothing has changed.

Here is the correct calculation:
Passing Net Yards: Gross yards - yards lost on sacks divided by Pass-Attempts + times sacked.
So Wilson on Sunday was; 139 gross yds passing minus 48 yds lost on sacks = 91 net passing yards. 18 PA plus 7 times sacked = 25 pass plays.
91 divided by 25 = 3.64 yards per pass play (Y/PP = killer stat No. 1, even tough some serious stat geeks still try to find a better number :cool:)
Look at the NFL game book here: http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/55956/STL_Gamebook.pdf
They have the correct numbers and calculations.
Now, on individual stats (like passer rating) the average is calculated on gross yards only. Sacks are not counted. The calculation then is simply gross yards divided by pass attempts. Wilson had 18 passes for 139 gross yards. His yards per pass attempt therefore was 7.72 (Y/A).
Conclusion: Never look at ESPN stats if you want the correct numbers. For accurate stats go to nfl.com or http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2013/
As you see for the season, the Seahawks are pretty good in Y/PP (10th NFL with 6.6). And No. 1 on Defense-Y/PP (4.9). Those numbers spell for great things ahead. Their record is no fluke, sundays game was just an exception.
 
I'm going to let Foxxy and Merckx argue stats.

Seattle now reporting Sydney Rice is out for the season with a torn ACL. That, plus how they are playing, I won't be surprised if San Francisco both beats them in SF, and wins the division. As much as Percy Harvin is to help Seattle, Michael Crabtree is going to help SF even more. Though I agree with on3@my that the Seattle OL is hurt, it's still a lack of discipline.

Kansas City is an enigma to me. They are somehow 8-0, though playing more like a 6-2 or even 5-3 team. I have a feeling they are going to get beaten handily by Denver in Denver, and finish the season maybe 11-5. Though oddly enough, maybe a bit loss to Denver could help them push towards the playoffs.

You guys should hear some New York Giants fans, and even pundits, talking. They seem to think the team is recovering after winning two games in a row, and since they are only two games out of first place, thanks to Dallas inevitable throwing wins away. It's like they don't realize they beat a lousy Vikings team with Josh Freeman playing straight out of street clothing, and a lousy Eagles team with Matt Barkley at QB. And in both games the Giants still didn't look good, and Eli looked poor. If you want to look up stats, look up Eli for some eye opening numbers.

Good article by Greg Rosenthal on NFL.com that I think sums up where we stand halfway through the season.

:cool:
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
manafana said:
Anyone going against the bengals tonight?
I guess no one of our experts here.
But... if Miami forces more turnovers (not including late game desperation Ints) than Cincy then, only then, Miami will have a chance.
 
FoxxyBrown1111 said:
I guess no one of our experts here.
But... if Miami forces more turnovers (not including late game desperation Ints) than Cincy then, only then, Miami will have a chance.

yeah literally can't see Miami winning if they arn't winning the turnover battle
 
manafana said:
Anyone going against the bengals tonight?
I'll add to Foxxy's predict that not one in this forum thinks MIA will win. So, yeah, I think Cincy wins.

Both teams stats wise are pretty similar, though MIA allows almost 24 points/game compared to 18 for Cincy. But offensively there is no comparison. The MIA (stands for missing in action) offense is almost at the bottome of the NFL stats, after starting out great (3-0) but then piling up 4 losses. Meanwhile, Cincy QB Dalton is playing out of his mind lately, and the Cincy offensive stats are near the top in the NFL (top 5 total yards). I have not heard anyone who thinks MIA will win.

On the NYG, the pundits may be on to something. I only mean, Coughlin is a coach most players want to play for, which was not always the case early in his career. He's pulled it out before. He works hard at it. Could be more hope than reality in G-land. So we'll see.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
... and here we go... MIA indeed won the (random) turnover battle, yet CIN still got the lead inside the 2MW.

Anyway, at -3 turnovers not even 14-pt. Fav. SL could beat a mediocre NE team in the 01-SB. Turnolvers are just too costly. OTOH, w/o turnovers a big fav would (almost) always win.
 
I'm going to argue the Patriots beat the Rams in 2002 SB because of Spygate as much as turnovers.

Before I make more predictions, here are some thoughts essentially halfway through the season.

Imagine the people who thought the Falcons would win the Superbowl? What they're thinking? But my gut tells me they are going to be dangerous for a team or two late in the season, looking to spoil a playoff run.

There are two teams I don't want to play on the road on the playoffs: Seattle and New Orleans. If either of those teams end up with HFA, look out. But I'm thinking with only three tough games left (Sea, NO, Carolina), and Crabtree and Aldon Smith to return, the 49ers are in the drivers seat there. Can Kaepernick lead them over the hump?

I'm not sure I'd want to play Green Bay or Kansas City either, though the Chiefs, as I said, do not look like an 8-0 team. Still, Arrowhead is loud and historically a tough place to play (when the Chiefs are good, and they are good, if only "6-2" good).

Some other teams that look like they may be very good late in the year are Green Bay, Baltimore, and San Diego. I'm looking forward to watching the Broncos take them on in SD.

Anyone notice the Panthers record? They are quietly looking like the wildcard in the NFC South.

I can't think of another year when so many teams will be looking to land a QB in the off-season. Either via the draft, or free agency. Jacksonville, Tampa Bay, Minnesota, Cleveland, all would love a new, franchise QB. The Cardinals, Bears, Giants, Steelers, and probably Texans if Keenum doesn't shine, will start to consider it as well. So will New England and Denver, even though none will admit it.

But when we look to next year, who's available? Teddy Bridgewater will go very early. Mariotta, Hundley, and McCarron may be worth the risk, but look more like an EJ Manuel or Geno Smith type prospect at best, than Luck or (a healthy) RGIII, let alone Wilson or Tannehill. Same with Bridgewater, actually. Manziel is exciting, but he's tiny. Smaller than Keenum or Colt McCoy. But the aforementioned teams may be desperate enough to scoop all these guys up in the first two rounds, plus a couple more QB's (providing they all go pro). But in free agency we'll see action as well. One guy who may get traded for a first round pick is Kirk Cousins. He's football smart, accurate, and has a decent arm. What's most interesting about this is he's from the same amazing draft that gave us Luck, RG3, Wilson and Tannehill. We also got Weeden though, who I'd call a bust had not the Browns been so much of a disaster of a team.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
I think most of teams (you mentioned) don´t need a new QB. I know Alpe, it´s an old discussion, but worth it every time. :)

Just remember my starter/replacemt QB-Study (how thin the difference is), how tight the talent level is in general, how much the QB is "made" by his surronding offensive members, how play calling effects their performance...

And even if some teams need a new QB, i wonder year-in-year-out why they (NFL teams) seem to depend on the draft of some unproven 21 year old boys.

There are plenty of unemployed but proven QB´s out on the streets, in supermarkets, in Canada, hell even here in europes top level leagues, or in arena football. And, clubs also have practise squads with at least NFL-training-camp-experience QB´s. For what do they have them if they aren´t used? No one can convince me that there aren´t some "rough diamonds" waiting for their chance (remember, any team can sign players off other teams practise squads) with teams who think they lack QB-Talent.
 
I'd say for the most part you're right. They don't need new QB's. But they'll be looking for them. And there are several reasons why, even if they defy logic. Established QB's have shown, even if given a poor chance, that they cannot play well enough to lead the team to a championship. The NFL is littered with QB's like this, from Campbell to Freeman to Flynn to McElroy to Dixon, to countless more. They sit as backups, or just get cut and are gone.

But NFL brass often think more emotionally than this. They see a young, unproven, as someone who has never failed in the NFL. They don't see Andrew Luck in every QB, they see Tom Brady. Plus, these rookies can come cheap. Look at the pay of Russell Wilson, or Colin Kaepernick. The real shame is that they don't see the Jamarcus Russell's, Ryan Leafs.

But a QB is only 1 of 11 on offense. The most important player, sure? But it's still very much a team sport. Could David Carr been a Superbowl winner in New England?

You want an example of a "finished" QB in the NFL, that a team was wise enough to see he wasn't finished at all. Look at Jim Plunknett's career in about 1979.
 
Was already wrong on Mia and Cin.

KC@BUF - While the Chiefs are ripe for an upset, but with Jeff Tuel (or Flynn?) at QB for Buffalo...
ATL@CAR - The Panthers have won 3 in a row, but against weak teams.
MIN@DAL - After a crushing loss, Cowboys bounce back to "normal".
NO@NYJ - Jets are so hot/cold, but Saints just hot.
TEN@STL - Were the Rams good, or Seattle bad on MNF? Locker needs to play better for Titans.
SD@WAS - RGIII better each week, right? But SD a better overall team.
PHI@OAK - Foles probably back at QB for Eagles, but Raiders slowly improving.
TB@SEA - TB goes into the abyss.
BAL@CLE - Browns have no QB. Campbell sub-average, Weeden as well. OL worse.
PIT@NE - Despite Brady's career slide (?) Pats better team.
IND@HOU - Strangely enough, if Keenum plays well, I give the Texans a chance at home. If he does play well and they win here and a few more games, Shaub will be done, and Kubiak resigned.
CHI@GB - Cutler still out. Packers win easy.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
I'd say for the most part you're right...
You want an example of a "finished" QB in the NFL...
Before i finished to read your sentence, Plunkett was already in my mind. :D
Bradshaw should be mentioned too. There are many QB´s out there waiting for a 2nd chance. No need to spend big dollars on unproven 1st or 2nd round picks. For every Wilson or Kaep there are tons of Mirers, Leafs, Akili Smithes and so on...

Alpe d'Huez said:
Was already wrong on Mia and Cin.
Don´t worry. Everybody was. You just can´t predict turnovers. If it would be possible, Vegas were bankrupt.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Every single person I know went for Cincy on Thursday.

KC@BUF - Chiefs are locky to be 8-0, but I don't see the run ending here.
ATL@CAR - Could certainly go either way. I'll take a chance on Atlanta finding some form.
MIN@DAL - Surely, not even these Cowboys can lose this one?
NO@NYJ - Saints just too good.
TEN@STL - Could go either way.
SD@WAS - My head says Sandy Eggo, but I'm foolishly going with my heart.
PHI@OAK - The Iggles were so disappointing last week..
TB@SEA - Banker of the day.
BAL@CLE - If they don't win this......
PIT@NE - Pats should be good enough, despite their struggles.
IND@HOU - Certainly upset potential here, but I'll stick with Luck's Colts.
CHI@GB - I can't imagine anything other than a Packer win.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY